I'm Pisces and she is Aquarius. how do you think I should behave to win her trust and love, how do you think i can get her forever?

Indi

pollux1er wrote:

I'm Pisces and she is Aquarius. how do you think I should behave to win her trust and love, how do you think i can get her forever?

Chloroform, good rope and a secluded basement. But when they ask where you got the idea, don't mention my name.

What does this have to do with science?

Pikokola

I guess if you asking about connection between Star signs that affected by the planets.. That'll be connected to the Science and Nature.. why and how...

Btw,.. How about Libra [Man] And Gemini [women] ?

ocalhoun

Do you really believe that what month you're born in affects your love life? If you do, please tell me how it does as I've never understood such things.

Indi

Pikokola wrote:

I guess if you asking about connection between Star signs that affected by the planets.. That'll be connected to the Science and Nature.. why and how...

Btw,.. How about Libra [Man] And Gemini [women] ?

That has no connection to science at all.

Would you like to see what real science looks like? It looks rather like this:

Newton's law of gravitation can be written like this:
where G is the universal gravitation constant, which equals 6.67×10^-11 N∙m²/kg², m is the mass of the body causing the gravity field and r is the distance from the center of the mass. This equation gives g, the acceleration due to the gravity field of the body m, at the distance r from that body.

Let's apply that.

According to the theory i hear most often, the "astrological effect" of a given planetary body is due to the gravity of that body. So just how much effect does a given planetary body have on us? Well, let's plug some astronomical data into that formula.

Except for the moon, each planet orbits around the sun just like the Earth. It is closest to the Earth when both are on the same side of the sun, and farthest when they are on opposite sides. The moon orbits the Earth, but not in a perfect circle. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's farther, which is what causes the tides. Objects on Earth can be so close to us we can touch them - i assume a minimum distance of half a meter - but the farthest away they can be is the opposite side of the Earth at its greatest diameter.

As you can see, if you're standing next to a car, it has more effect on you than any of the planets, although not as much as the moon. The hospital you were born in has almost ten times as much effect on you as the moon.

Note that if Uma Thurman were to stand next to you, she would have more effect on you than any of the planets except Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon. And Uma's not that heavy.

redace

pollux1er wrote:

I'm Pisces and she is Aquarius. how do you think I should behave to win her trust and love, how do you think i can get her forever?

I beg you to delete this topic altough it is probably meant like a joke.

The Conspirator

Astrology is not science, astrology is one of those stupid myths that refuse to die like luck and fate.

pollux1er

redace wrote:

pollux1er wrote:

I'm Pisces and she is Aquarius. how do you think I should behave to win her trust and love, how do you think i can get her forever?

I beg you to delete this topic altough it is probably meant like a joke.

Sorry for you redace. But it is not a joke. I've though a lot before about astroly, i made myself an experiment on many astrolical bahaviour of different sign before i decided to write such a topic. It has a lot to do with science. Don't be close to that science. Try to ask yourself why? how? and you ll get an answer.

Indi

pollux1er wrote:

redace wrote:

pollux1er wrote:

I'm Pisces and she is Aquarius. how do you think I should behave to win her trust and love, how do you think i can get her forever?

I beg you to delete this topic altough it is probably meant like a joke.

Sorry for you redace. But it is not a joke. I've though a lot before about astroly, i made myself an experiment on many astrolical bahaviour of different sign before i decided to write such a topic. It has a lot to do with science. Don't be close to that science. Try to ask yourself why? how? and you ll get an answer.

i've done an experiment, too. We printed up 12 sets of personality characteristics, one per sign. Then we walked around a class of undergraduate psychology students and asked them what their sign was, and handed them one of the sheets depending on their answer. Then we asked them to rate with a percentage value how close to their actual personality they felt the profile was.

Then we asked for a show of hands of how many people thought the match was 100%. Just a couple. 90% or better. A couple more. 80% or better. A few more. 70% or better. Lots more. 60% or better. Pretty much the whole class, minus a couple.

Then we asked them to trade profile sheets with their neighbour. And they all started laughing. Every profile sheet for every sign was identical.

The purpose of the test was to demonstrate a phenomenon called the Forer effect.

The profile sheet was put together from random phrases we got from an astrology website that described the characteristics of the different astrological signs. Basically, we'd use a random number generator (a three or four line C program) to pick two numbers. The first number was used to select a sign in alphabetical order. The second was used to pick a sentence number. So if the generator rolled 2, 7, we'd take the seventh sentence from the aquarius profile. If the sentence gave away the sign - for example, if it said something like "the water element means you have..." or "aquarians get along well with <sign 1> and <sign 2>...", then it was discarded. Otherwise, we added it to the profile. Once it was long enough, we shuffled sentences around to make it flow. Then we printed them up on different coloured sheets of paper, stacked them by colour, and all we had to do from there was hand them out. That's all there was to the experimental design, so if any of you have access to a group of people, i recommend running the experiment yourself. i'll even give you code to generate random numbers if you like.

pollux1er wrote:

Try to ask yourself why? how? and you ll get an answer.

See, here's the thing. i did ask myself why and how. And then i ran not one but two experiments to determine the answers. First i asked "how can the planets possibly affect our lives", and the answer given to me was "gravity". So i crunched the numbers and showed that gravity is not really a factor. Then i asked, "if there really is nothing behind astrology, why do people believe it?". So i ran the Forer experiment and showed that it's possible for vague, empty profile data to be judged very personal and meaningful. (Although, technically, i didn't have to run that experiment, because Forer already has, and he did it much better than i did.)

i didn't "close" my mind to the possibility, i tested it. That's science. Now I ask you: aren't you closing your mind to the possibility that it's completely untrue?

i'll even give you the scientific tools you need to do the job. You have hypothesized the existence of a phenomenon and a relationship between that phenomenon and another phenomenon.

Your first task is to show that the phenomenom actually exists. That's not an easy thing to do, in light of the Forer effect. We know the Forer effect exists - it can even be replicated by a half-ass attempt. You're going to have to show that astrological effects exist, and that they cannot be explained by the Forer effect, statistical randomness, or any other effect. That's extremely hard to do. But it's what you have to do. Good luck.

Your second task is to show that the relationship between the two phenomenon - people's personalities/behaviours and the stars' motions - exists. You have to correlate celestial data with personal data, and show a relationship that cannot be explained by statistical randomness or any other means. That's fairly hard to do. But again, it's what you have to do. Enjoy.

Your third task is to hypothesize a causal mechanism. You can't just show that when Venus is in conjunction with Mars everyone gets horny or whatever. You also have to explain how the locations of Venus and Mars can effect people's lives. Can't be gravity, i showed that. So what is the causal mechanism? Without that, even if you've managed the first two tasks, all you've done is shown a pretty impressive coincidence. This step is fairly easy. However...

Your fourth task is to prove the existence of the causal mechanism. Now this is tough. Oftentimes, it's damn near impossible, except by indirect evidence. This is the step that will take 90% of the time. So go forth! Do some science.

Does it sound tough? It is. But that's what it takes to do real science and not pseudoscience. Real science is work, hard, hard work. But doing the work allows you to be sure that the conclusion you reach is the best conclusion that you can possibly reach. It protects you from deluding yourself. If you're really serious about astrology being as science, then you should be prepared to run it through the wringer.

(Or you could just save yourself the time. People have been trying to show astrology is a science for hundreds of years. None have succeeded. But if you really feel that they're all missing something and there really is something to it, by all means, do the work yourself.)

benjmd

Very nice, detailed post Indi, however this is quicker to demonstrate the same point, and more amusing:

As for pollux1er, dude, if all you're going on is that she is an Aquarius and you are a Pisces, you've got yourself one heck of an uphill battle.
You might try actually getting to know who she is rather than figuring out which chapter of that astrology book to read.

Indi

benjmd wrote:

Very nice, detailed post Indi, however this is quicker to demonstrate the same point, and more amusing:

That doesn't demonstrate any point, and certainly not the same point i was making.

If someone claims that science is not taking something seriously, what effectiveness do you think poking fun at it is? You're only proving his paranoid fantasies true.

On the other hand, let the hard light of science shine on it, and the believer will be forced to do one of three things. Either they will have to agree that there is no scientific basis for it and discard the idea, or they will have to agree there is no scientific basis for it and begin a program of research to seek a scientific basis, or they will have to simply reject science altogether and go the route of the crackpot mystic. If they choose the last path, there's nothing we can really do, but at least we don't have to deal with yet another pseudoscientist muddying up the waters of real science. If they choose the first path, then they've learned something. If they choose the second path, then good on them. Maybe they'll teach us all something. Doubtful. But possible.

Simply making fun of people's beliefs does not help anyone. Of course, if there's no chance of salvaging anything from the person and their belief system - such as in the case of the crackpot mystic - then go nuts. It's your time to waste. But if we can teach someone what real science is and how it really works, then we can do a service to everyone.

pollux1er

Indi wrote:

benjmd wrote:

Very nice, detailed post Indi, however this is quicker to demonstrate the same point, and more amusing:

That doesn't demonstrate any point, and certainly not the same point i was making.

If someone claims that science is not taking something seriously, what effectiveness do you think poking fun at it is? You're only proving his paranoid fantasies true.

On the other hand, let the hard light of science shine on it, and the believer will be forced to do one of three things. Either they will have to agree that there is no scientific basis for it and discard the idea, or they will have to agree there is no scientific basis for it and begin a program of research to seek a scientific basis, or they will have to simply reject science altogether and go the route of the crackpot mystic. If they choose the last path, there's nothing we can really do, but at least we don't have to deal with yet another pseudoscientist muddying up the waters of real science. If they choose the first path, then they've learned something. If they choose the second path, then good on them. Maybe they'll teach us all something. Doubtful. But possible.

Simply making fun of people's beliefs does not help anyone. Of course, if there's no chance of salvaging anything from the person and their belief system - such as in the case of the crackpot mystic - then go nuts. It's your time to waste. But if we can teach someone what real science is and how it really works, then we can do a service to everyone.

I entirely agree with you Indi. Let's make a sacrifice if we want to know what is really. Your development is very interesting and i will by the way thanks you for being interested in this topic. I couldn't have seen a better person tha you to explain the dealing of behaviour with astrology. Astrology stays a big science like the others and has a reason. It is that reason we should try to know. But everyone has its belief. So someone are convinced while the others are not. But mention the fact that, astrology is a Science. So it is exact, such as mathematics. Now the way is to interprete it in good meaning observed. Some will think of a fourtunate or random science. Don't think so... It is an exact science, but the interpretation can vary.

Erridan the enchanter

I recomend you find your signs under the chinese zodiac, because the western astrology stuff isn't very correct (it has it's truths) but the eastern stuff is dead on.

A current adition of "Handbook of chinese horscopes" should tell you all you want to know. (not sure if that's the right title and spelling).

Most eastern stuff has been around and stood the test of time of around 2,000 years or more.

And yes the paranormal and metaphysical are science.

Indi

Erridan the enchanter wrote:

And yes the paranormal and metaphysical are science.

Not by the definition of "science".

pollux1er

Indi wrote:

Erridan the enchanter wrote:

And yes the paranormal and metaphysical are science.

Not by the definition of "science".

I think I entirely agree with Indi. When you say that paranormal is science, i do not agee with you at all. It's just that Narmal is science. Science is normal. All what science can explain is said to be normal. Not paranormal. But maybe you have a view that you are not well explaining. Tell us exactly what makes you say that. Anyway you can be right...